Thursday, August 16, 2007

Polarization Politics

Barack Obama points out the obvious: that he is a less polarizing candidate than Hillary Clinton, and her campaign responds by accusing him of getting talking points from Karl Rove - essentially betraying a willingness to polarize even the Democrats!

My take-away here is this: Even if you think Obama lacks the experience to be President right now, as long as you think he would make a great Vice President and possible future President, don’t vote for Hillary - because she’s willing to push Obama off a cliff in order to get hers now, the future of the Democratic Party be damned!

And it also occurs to me that, when it comes to a general election in our two-party system, where you have to pick one candidate or the other in order to have your vote matter, the only alternative to being “polarizing” is to be so bland as to inspire people not to vote!

The key to success is to be “polarizing” from a place that encourages more voters to choose you than your opponent! That’s why I find it so interesting that Obama finished third to Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in a poll among Iowa Republicans, while Hillary is willing to alienate other Democrats by comparing them to Karl Rove!

I don't know I kind of have a feeling that this is all for show. Kind of like a bad TV movie where the couple breaks up but the audience just wants them to get back togother. In the end they do and everybody feels all warm and fuzzy. That may be what is going on here.

It's kind of ironic; Hillary is the candidate most feared and loathed by Republicans, yet she's the Democratic candidate who is most Reblican-like in her policies and her tactics. The more I know about her, the less I like her. She's about my 6th choice out of the Dem field.

Of course, she's still 10 times better than any of the Repug candidates, and 100 times better than King George!